Originally posted by SunWizard:I am recommending an absolute rated cartridge for those who want to go smaller, such as people with high pressure common rail engines. Or for those who want extra peace of mind.

For my next project <g>...I was thinking of running settled oil through a 30-10-2 micron filters on its way to my CF barrel, then running it through the CF just to see what doesn't get filtered by the filters.

I'd like to know if a pure filter system is the equivalent as some say (outside of the price of replacement). There are many folks that filter to 10 micron, and I'd like to see what they are running through their injectors. I wonder if that accounts for some of the failures?

Originally posted by SunWizard:With my climate I am trying to store away a winters supply so I don't have to collect and process much when its -10F. So 4-6 month long term poly is my concern.

I've pretty much used my stored oil first, but I have some at the bottom of a 55 gallon drum, maybe 5 gallons that has been stored for 3 months. I'll do a run test on it this weekend.I'd hope that you wouldn't have much of a problem storing oil in the cold.

Regarding trying to collect for the winter. I'm obligated to collect, come sun, snow or, in the case of WY...wind, to be sure I don't lose my sources to someone else. How do you get around that? I guess as much travel as we do I'd have to collect anyway.

Originally posted by Sam Crowe:For my next project <g>...I was thinking of running settled oil through a 30-10-2 micron filters on its way to my CF barrel, then running it through the CF just to see what doesn't get filtered by the filters.

Any suggestions?

Is the 2m absolute? I think thats the thing many don't pay attention to. Try some with just 30-10m nominal then CF since thats what many are using, and I bet you remove lots more goo.

And I don't think filters are the equivalent or even close when it comes to suspended water removal.

Originally posted by SunWizard:Is the 2m absolute? I think thats the thing many don't pay attention to. Try some with just 30-10m nominal then CF since thats what many are using, and I bet you remove lots more goo.

I don't think the 2 is absolute, I have no idea, and it is hard to find out. They don't seem to like to say.

Sorry to be a pain but is the univesal mount Dieselcraft supply with the centrifuge worth the money? It looks useful but if the centrifuge is reasonably easy to mount without it, that would be great (as I need to ship it to the UK)

Yes its worth the money if you want a threaded output like I use for my mobile version, or if you want to mount it to a vertical surface. If you mount it to a horizontal surface with an open drain then you don't need it.

Originally posted by SunWizard:I am not using any more filtering after the CF before I pump into the truck, using my truck as a long term test, and also since I have proven to myself that I can get <10m absolute. I am getting >10k miles on my truck filter.

I am recommending an absolute rated cartridge for those who want to go smaller, such as people with high pressure common rail engines. Or for those who want extra peace of mind.

HI Sun. I'm a bit new to this. When you say absolute rated cartridge what exactly is that ? and will that effect the flow rate to your IP ?

I am talking about your prefilter setup, where you want to filter finer than your vehicle filter. In your vehicle, use whatever rating the stock filter is, no change to IP flow.

If a filter doesn't specify absolute (>98.7%) or a % rating, then its nominal and unknown how much % it removes. Nominal varies widely and usually means it removes 50-90% of particles to the stated size.

I've started my next evaluation, in this case look at what the CF removes after filters have nominally filtered out everything above 10 micron.

I moved 80 gallons of settled, 120 degree oil, through a 30 and a 10 micron filter into my CF barrel. That oil had been heated to 160 degrees F on Saturday, then early on Sunday the heat was cut off and it cooled to 120 degrees by this evening.

After I moved the oil through the filters I recirculated the oil back through the filters for three hours (polishing) while reheating to the CF run temp (160). That cycled the oil through the filters about 20 times.

The flow appeared constant from beginning to end coming through the filters; it didn't appear they were plugging. I have to admit, it looks pretty clean coming out the filters, so we'll just have to see what it looks like after going through the DieselCraft, tomorrow.

Originally posted by Sam Crowe:... in this case look at what the CF removes after filters have nominally filtered out everything above 10 micron....I have to admit, it looks pretty clean coming out the filters, so we'll just have to see what it looks like after going through the DieselCraft.

After 4 hours, or approximately 7.5 passes, this is what was in the rotor. It was only a millimeter or two thick, hopefully you can see how much was scrapped off the rotor wall. Obviously it is cleaner than if not filtered, but... Nevertheless, if you use a 10 micron filter into your vehicle this is what you'd be likely trying to burn in 80 gallons, yet this goop is non-flameable and has to go somewhere.

Originally posted by canolafunola:Was this batch of oil heated by an electric element while running through the CF? If so, could some of that black glue be generated by the electric element?

Good question. How do you envision that? Burned food particles or oil? If it was the oil burning it wouldn't decrease while running the batch, but might increase? I've seen where I've had the element set in motionless oil that the food particles burn to the element, if it happened in this case they would be very small particles.

However, since I don't want the particles burning on the element I've tried to avoid that by having my uptake pipe connected next to the element, so it has a lot of movement across.

Having said that...as long as I run the CF I can still get some deposit, even if it is just enough to see, but still thin enough to see the rotor wall. My working theory is that the CF removes a very small percentage of particles below 10 micron during each pass, this is what makes the circular system as useful as double barrel system. That would account for the reason when I tested passing the oil from one barrel to another I still had to run it about the same amount of time to get it equally clean. If that being the case, I should still have about the same amount of goop when I next clean.

Just want to join the discussion about filtering after the CF. Myself was feeling unsure about the cleanliness of the oil, especially since there is alway a lot of particles on the bottom of the drum, even after 3 hours with only 17 gal oil. I decided to help these particles in to the CF by manually rotating the oil in the drum to create a better movement of the oil. But the slow flow out of the barrel makes it still an unsure operation.

Now i have rebuilt my rig, using 1" valves to get an output directly from the CF while working, to my store containers.But I also took the extra job to add 1 micron large sock filter as the very last filtering.By the way, it is two filters, since the first one I bought, probably wasn't a 1 m filter so I got a replacement. Now the oil has to penetrate two filters, at least one is 1 micron, the other probably 5m. And now I empty the drum completely and all the large particles goes into the CF.

I feel I have more peace in mind now than before. :-)But the CF is really doing a good job, and it was all worth it.

Here we are after 13 hours run time, 9 hours on the rotor in this photo. I'm going to let it run all night and pop a clean rotor in early in the morning.

I'm thinking that for my next batch I'll do as normal, move the oil to my storage container, then back to the CF barrel but pass it through my 2 then 1 micron filters as I would normally do into my fuel tank. Then I'll run the DieselCraft just to see what else I can take out of the oil that I'm burning, following having it run through the two filters.